How the Dispute Started
Proven Industries is a Florida-based lock manufacturer known for marketing high-security locks, including a trailer hitch lock priced around 130 dollars. In March 2025, the company posted a promotional video showing the lock withstanding a sledgehammer, daring critics to try to beat it, and suggesting online that certain lockpicking YouTubers only targeted cheap locks.
Trevor McNally, a former U.S. Marine known online as a lockpicking YouTuber with millions of subscribers, took up the challenge. He filmed himself bypassing the lock in seconds using a shim cut from an aluminum can, and later posted additional videos demonstrating the same vulnerability on multiple units of the lock.
The Lawsuit
Rather than address the flaw, Proven Industries sued McNally in federal court in May 2025. The complaint raised eight claims, including copyright infringement, defamation by implication, false advertising, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy. The company argued McNally had misled viewers about how easy the bypass was and had used portions of its own promotional video without permission.
McNally denied the claims, maintaining the lock was not altered and the bypass required minimal preparation. During the litigation, it emerged that a Proven Industries employee had separately replicated the same shim technique, and at a hearing the judge rejected the argument that a customer being persuaded not to buy a product by a public demonstration amounted to tortious interference.
How It Ended
In July 2025, after the court denied its request for an emergency preliminary injunction against McNally, Proven Industries voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. McNally was never found liable on any of the eight claims. The company also sought to seal much of the court record, but that request drew formal opposition and did not undo the public attention the case had already attracted.
The episode has become a widely cited illustration of how litigation aimed at silencing a product critic can backfire, since the legal fight generated far more scrutiny of the lock than the original video alone would have. Proven Industries later published a public statement acknowledging its response had been a misstep and said it was dropping all related legal action.
How to Get Legal Help
This case is a widely cited example of a company suing a critic over an honest product demonstration, sometimes called a SLAPP suit. If a company threatens legal action over your honest review or demonstration, an attorney familiar with anti-SLAPP protections and fair-use principles can advise on your rights before you take anything down.
To follow any further developments, bookmark this page and subscribe to LawsuitWatch alerts.
Free Legal Evaluation
Do You Qualify to File a Claim?
Our network of verified plaintiff attorneys offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. Contingency fee representation means you pay nothing unless you win.
Proven Locks Lawsuit: How a Lockmaker Sued a YouTuber and Lost: Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to the most common questions about this case and your legal options.
What is the Proven Locks lawsuit?
Lock manufacturer Proven Industries sued lockpicking YouTuber Trevor McNally in May 2025 over a video showing one of its trailer hitch locks bypassed with a soda-can shim, alleging copyright infringement, defamation, and other claims.
Did McNally alter the lock or fake the video?
No such finding was made. McNally maintained the lock was unaltered and the bypass required minimal preparation, and he was never found liable on any of the eight claims Proven Industries brought.
How did the case end?
Proven Industries voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in July 2025 after a court denied its request for an emergency preliminary injunction against McNally.
Did Proven Industries fix the lock?
The company publicly acknowledged its legal response was a misstep and said it was dropping the litigation. Public reporting on the case has focused on the company response rather than a specific redesign announcement.
What is the broader lesson?
The case is frequently cited as an example of litigation aimed at a product critic backfiring, since the lawsuit brought far more public attention to the underlying flaw than the original video alone.